Tech Tyranny

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I've always suspected that it was the result of a self-administered rectal probe.

Often enough, what they call misinformation today is something that they swallowed whole on the past... .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Have YOU ever been deceived!!!!!! Both in the characterization of LBJ and the equivalence of Biden to him.

I am not an LBJ fan, because he was a loathsome individual, and he so screwed up Vietnam. But he pushed hard on 'big gov' projects because he did want to progress the country. I am pretty sure his interest in desegregation and various 'Great Society' projects were genuinely well-intentioned, if ultimately flawed.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Wikipedia has been discredited as a reliable source of factual information for some time, and I could give a personal example of that, but choose not to do so as it would personally identify me.
Then fix it. That is the whole point of Wikipedia - it is open to change by anybody. It is the ultimate democratic source of information.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
If it can be changed by anyone at any time then it is worthless as an authority, as I told my students a quarter of a century ago... .
It is not that simple. You will have a hard time finding a better aggregator of information, especially stuff that is not controversial. Some topics are controversial and even those are subject to pretty rigorous information vetting, and all citations must be made explicit. Of course, some things are not completely correct - I have corrected multiple pages related to my specialty.

You will have a hard time finding anything more comprehensive and accurate. In fact, there isn't anything that can compete. No encyclopedia covers anywhere near as much, in as much detail.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Like the value of Hunter Biden paintings?

Or with as much leftist bias.
Who cares about the Hunter Biden paintings? You act as if it had anything to do with the White House. You want me to start listing parasitic relatives of presidents?

You don't like the leftist bias, go in and make corrections. No one is stopping you. Not that you have proven bias, anyway.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I would not allow my students to use any reference in their research that included data that was likely to be radically changed in the short term.
My suggestion to them was to use Wikipedia as a source for search terms that could be used to find their information from more stable and reputable sources.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I would not allow my students to use any reference in their research that included data that was likely to be radically changed in the short term.
My suggestion to them was to use Wikipedia as a source for search terms that could be used to find their information from more stable and reputable sources.

Obviously it cannot be a primary source - no instructor allows this. It is akin to using a dictionary. But since it is fully cited, with links to citations, it is an invaluable tool for students.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Then fix it. That is the whole point of Wikipedia - it is open to change by anybody. It is the ultimate democratic source of information.
No ... it's been changed ... the original principles corrupted, if you will. You should hear what Wiki's co-founder has to say about it now.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
No ... it's been changed ... the original principles corrupted, if you will. You should hear what Wiki's co-founder has to say about it now.

OK, so give me an example of something meaningfully untrue and left-biased in Wikipedia. If it is as common as you say, it should be easy to find.
 
Top